Greetings Annelidans:
I hope I wasn't misunderstood--I was not trying to besmirch the rightful
reputation of Anker Petersen as a talented illustrator...just speculating
on the possible reasons why figures 1 & 2 for T. monilaris did not match
each other or the text description. I thought it was highly suggestive
that the pre-pygidial count of one illustration just happened to match the
thoracic count of only the second illustration.
Since Leslie says the specimen held by AHF (5586) is a match for the
figure # 2 illustration (except for loss of anterior appendages !); I
thus assume this material does not match either the text description for
T. monilaris, the actual holotype held by AHF for monilaris, or the
illustration in figure # 1.
So this would mean we have an Aphelochaeta monilaris (with 15 crowded
thoracic setigers) and a yet undescribed (?Aphelochaeta) species with 10
crowded thoracic setigers---which through some unclear method (between
Hartman's inspection and AHF's printing) got printed on plate # 12 as
supporting material for the holotype.
Quite possibly it is preposterous these two illustrations are the same
species.
bye for now,
Tom Parker
mblcsdla at netcom.com
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, JAMES A. BLAKE wrote:
> Dear Annelid workers,
>> I would like to add a reality check to the current discussion of the
> "Tharyx monilaris" (should be Aphelochaeta) illustration that has just
> appeared in Rouse and Fauchald.
>> First, the original description by Hartman (1960: AHPE, vol. 22:127) from
> material off southern California lists material from two stations: (1)
> Sta. 4723 off Newport Beach in 128 fms in silt. The second location is
> Sta. 5586 from off Santa Barbara in 37 fms in green clay. The type is
> selected from Sta. 4723 and is illustrated in Plate 12, fig. 1. Figure 2
> from the same plate is the illustration reproduced by Rouse and Fauchald
> and is from Sta. 5586. Therefore, the illustration under discussion is
> not the type specimen designated by Hartman and Tom Parker may be correct
> in suggesting that it differs from the description of A. monilaris. It
> is not possible that both illustrations refer to the same specimen
> because the figure legends clearly indicate they are from different
> samples. The suggestion that Anker Petersen would have added palps to a
> posterior end is preposterous. Although good illustrators will embellish
> their illustrations (Mr. Petersen certainly did and I do it myself), I am
> quite confident that Mr. Petersen would not have taken such liberties as
> adding critical structures where they did not exist. It is more than
> likely that there is another species involved. In addition to the 20 new
> taxa reported in my 1996 Atlas cirratulid chapter, I can tell everyone
> categorically that there are many more out there, especially in the genus
> Aphelochaeta.
-- ANNELIDA
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
